The original article on Al Awlaki posted last year was titled Anwar Al Awlaki’s Latest Message of Hate, and it remains at the bottom of this updated article along with previous updates on Al Awlaki which will now become a TAM article collection.

UPDATE 9/30/2011 - Anwar Al Awlaki Assassinated

It has been reported that Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed. There are numerous news reports with conflicting information, some saying that he was killed by Yemeni forces and others saying that he was killed by U.S. forces. The Guardian is reporting that the U.S. is keeping the details quiet to manage possible fallout in Yemen. We will update as more information becomes available.

Forbes reports that a second American citizen was killed in the same airstrike. “U.S. and Yemeni officials say Samir Khan and al-Awlaki were killed early Friday in a strike on a convoy in Yemen. The strike was carried out by the CIA and U.S. Joint Special Operations Command. Khan edited the slick Western-style Internet publication “Inspire Magazine” that attracted many readers.”

The question of due process was raised previously, and remains a relevant question. Glenn Greenwald writes

What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President’s ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki—including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry’s execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists—criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.

From an authoritarian perspective, that’s the genius of America’s political culture. It not only finds way to obliterate the most basic individual liberties designed to safeguard citizens from consummate abuses of power (such as extinguishing the lives of citizens without due process). It actually gets its citizens to stand up and clap and even celebrate the destruction of those safeguards.

Ron Paul has condemned the assassination, and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson has expressed serious concerns. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has objected to the killing of the U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen by U.S. forces. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) has also condemned the killing of Al Awlaki.

In a statement reacting to al-Awlaki’s death, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said: “As we have stated repeatedly in the past, the American Muslim community firmly repudiated Anwar al-Awlaki’s incitement to violence, which occurred after he left the United States. While a voice of hate has been eliminated, we urge our nation’s leaders to address the constitutional issues raised by the assassination of American citizens without due process of law.”

Of the statements made by Ron Paul, the ACLU, and the CCR and CAIR, CAIR’s statement was the most muted and tentative in regard to the very real Constitutional issues involved.

The Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center where Al Awlaki was once employed also issued a statement on the death of Anwar al-Aulaqi. In their statement they reiterated “that as an American faith community we do not accept violence nor extremism and re-commit ourselves to our message living our faith in peace, tolerance and the promotion of the public good.” Their statement also said “We must also add that in previous statements we have rejected the use of extra-judicial assassination of any human being and especially an American citizen which includes Al-Awlaki. We reiterate our commitment to “due process under law” and justice and are concerned that the alleged drone attack sends the wrong message to law abiding people around the world.”

While continuing to repudiate Al-Awlaki’s violence-filled message of hate, MPAC and Constitutional scholars have raised legal concerns about the methods used in Al-Awlaki’s demise, namely the killing of an American citizen without a trial and due process.

During the past few years, he has been a vocal mouthpiece attempting to incite Western Muslims to violence against their home countries. According to MPAC’s “Post-9/11 Terrorism Database,” 16 out of 26 al-Qaeda attacks against the American homeland have been either operationally planned or inspired by Al-Awlaki. This includes the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, 2009 Christmas Day underwear bomber and the 2010 Times Square attacks.

Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of the 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide have rejected al-Qaeda’s ideology of death.

“It is revealing that in his own backyard of the Middle East, Al-Awlaki’s message was irrelevant with the Yemeni people,” said Salam Al-Marayati, MPAC’s President. “Since the beginning of the Arab Spring, the people of Yemen have bravely attempted to unshackle themselves from the iron grip of a dictator. The actions of the Yemeni people have buried al-Qaeda’s ideology even before Al-Awlaki’s death.”

On the news of the death of Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen as reported this morning, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) reiterates its rejection of the extremist ideology that he espoused. Since 2002, Al-Awlaki has consistently attempted to spread fear and hatred in America and to provoke Muslims to kill their fellow Americans. ISNA condemns his involvement in recent terrorist attacks and failed attempts in Detroit, Ft. Hood, Times Square, and Yemen, and the subsequent murder of innocent civilians, including Muslims.

For the past decade, the American Muslim community has repeatedly rejected his calls for violence, which directly contradict the peaceful teachings of Islam. The Islamic Society of North America has joined its fellow American Muslim organizations and individuals on numerous occasions to denounce his hateful ideology. Last year, ISNA collaborated with the Muslim Public Affairs Council to produce a video called, “Injustice Cannot Defeat Injustice,” in which a broad based group of Muslim Scholars in North America presented theological statements refuting Awlaki’s baseless claims. The Islamic Society of North America remains dedicated to preserving the Islamic tradition of peace and will continue to reject the ideology of violent extremism, regardless of its source.

But the crucial issue is this: How involved was Mr. al-Awlaki in planning or ordering terrorist operations? The cleric’s role as an inspiration to al-Qaida followers is clear. His English language sermons and Internet savvy made him a powerful figure in recruiting and encouraging those who would do harm to the United States, and he has connections to several militants who tried or succeeded in attacking the West — including Nadal Hassan, the man accused of killing 13 and wounding 29 at Fort Hood, Texas; and accused underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

There is no question that Mr. al-Awlaki was a traitor to the country in which he was born and wished harm on Americans. But in order to judge whether it was appropriate to target him as an enemy combatant, it’s important to know whether he did more than make hateful speeches and exhortations in mosques and on the web. Killing a terrorist mastermind is one thing, assassinating a propagandist, however vile, is another. At this point, we simply don’t have enough information to know which this was.

The central question in the death of American extremist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is not his innocence. That really misses the point. Awlaki was the only publicly known name on a covert list of American citizens the US government believes it can legally kill without charge or trial. Awlaki’s killing can’t be viewed as a one-off situation; what we’re talking about is the establishment of a precedent by which a US president can secretly order the death of an American citizen unchecked by any outside process. Rules that get established on the basis that they only apply to the “bad guys” tend to be ripe for abuse, particularly when they’re secret.

... Uncritically endorsing the administration’s authority to kill Awlaki on the basis that he was likely guilty, or an obviously terrible human being, is short-sighted. Because what we’re talking about here is not whether Awlaki in particular deserved to die. What we’re talking about is trusting the president with the authority to decide, with the minor bureaucratic burden of asking “specific permission,” whether an American citizen is or isn’t a terrorist and then quietly rendering a lethal sanction against them.

The question is not whether or not you trust that President Obama made the right decision here. It’s whether or not you trust him, and all future presidents, to do so—and to do so in complete secrecy.

UPDATE 5/7/2011 - Drone strike misses Al Awlaki

The Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following statement in response to yesterday’s reports of an attempt by the U.S. to kill Anwar Al-Awlaqi by drone strike in Yemen:

“We are deeply concerned about reports of resumed strikes in Yemen aimed at U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi, whose addition to secret kill lists maintained by the CIA and the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) based on secret criteria was announced last year.

The use of lethal force against Al-Aulaqi in Yemen, a country against which the United States is not at war, is illegal under the U.S. Constitution and international law in all but the narrowest circumstances – as a last resort to protect against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. U.S. officials are obliged to comply with these standards.

Notwithstanding the government’s allegations against Al-Aulaqi, he has never been given any form of process that would be due a U.S. citizen or any individual before execution by the state. The executive’s policy of targeting suspects based only on its own say-so also poses the real risk that the government, which has clearly made mistakes, as the past decade has shown, will target the wrong people.

It is shameful that at a time when the people of Yemen and the Middle East are struggling for the rule of law, human rights and democracy, and protesting against violence by their governments, the U.S. is resuming strikes for which there is no transparency or accountability, and only escalating violence.

UPDATE 8/5/2010 - The Question of Due Process for American Citizens

The question of due process is being raised by many, including Rep. Dennis Kucinich who seeks to ban assassinations of US citizens. Full text of H.R. 6010 [111th]: To prohibit the extrajudicial killing of United States citizens, and for other purposes here. Jeremy Scahill reports

Lawyers for US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who has reportedly been targeted for assassination by the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command, had to fight the US government to have the right to represent him. On Wednesday, following a lawsuit by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Treasury Department issued a license to the pro-bono lawyers. Now the battle for due process begins. In a statement, al-Awlaki’s new lawyers said the license would “allow us to pursue our litigation relating to the government’s asserted authority to engage in targeted killings of American civilians without due process.”

... Most lawmakers have been mute about the Obama administration’s policy to target a US citizen for assassination. Representative Jane Harman, who serves on the Homeland Security Committee, said recently that Awlaki is “probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us.” One of the few who has spoken against the policy is Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich. “The assassination policies vitiate the presumption of innocence and the government then becomes the investigator, policeman, prosecutor, judge, jury, executioner all in one,” Kucinich told me in April. “That raises the greatest questions with respect to our constitution and our democratic way of life.” He called the policy “extrajudicial.”

Kucinich is putting his money where his mouth is. He just announced he has introduced legislation to “prohibit the extrajudicial killing of United States citizens.” The bill states that “No one, including the President, may instruct a person acting within the scope of employment with the United States Government or an agent acting on behalf of the United States Government to engage in, or conspire to engage in, the extrajudicial killing of a United States citizen.” It adds: “the authority granted to the President in the Authorization for Use of Military Force…following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, is not limitless.”

The bill would require the president to submit to the Intelligence Committees a report “on the identity of each United States citizen that is on the list of the Joint Special Operations Command or the Central Intelligence Agency as `high value individuals’ or `high value targets’.”

A Newsweek article a few months ago called the possibility of a targeted assassination An Act of Futility. A few key points from the article:

... Killing Awlaki will do little to disrupt Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Inside that organization, he is a nobody—at best, a midlevel functionary in a local branch. There are dozens of men who could do more harm to the United States, and killing Awlaki would only embolden them and aid in recruitment. For an organization as resilient and adaptive as AQAP, his death would be a minor irritant, not a debilitating blow. The futility of such a strike should give Obama pause before he greenlights the assassination of a fellow citizen.

... there is no evidence to suggest Awlaki is on AQAP’s legal council, an internal group that both provides the religious justification for attacks and guides the future direction of the organization. Nor is there even a hint that he plays anything resembling a leading role in the group.

... Even his links to the two attacks are more speculative and assumed than concrete. Awlaki is known to have exchanged e-mails with Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter (he confirmed as much to Al-Jazeera), and to being in contact with Abdulmutallab, whom he called his “student.” (Abdulmutallab is thought to have attended one of Awlaki’s sermons in London.) But he never acknowledged meeting either man.

... Meanwhile, the face of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is an American, Adam Gadahn (also known as Azzam the American), and there is no standing order for his execution—at least no declaratory position.

“To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters?”

Well, now that you’ve posed the question, I’ll tell you why, and may Allah grant us His mercy. First of all, peaceful coexistence is not a crime; it is a mercy from the Almighty God be He Exalted and Glorified. As American Muslims, we peacefully coexist with our country because we are not under attack because of our faith and we are not driven from our homes; “Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.” 60:8 Quran. We live here because some of us were born and raised here, and it is the only home that we know. My forefathers came here as slaves, and have helped build this country with their bare hands. Millions of other Muslims have sought and received refuge and safe passage through this vast land of ours, and have made it their home. As American Muslims, we are of different origins; nevertheless we are here now, and it is the result of God’s divine Providence, and we are connected to this soil.

We live here because we are free men, women and children. We have the right to live here and this is our country. We live here because Millions of American Muslims attend this nations masaajid every week without being accosted, bombed while in prayer, or hindered in any way from worshipping our Lord. Many Muslim Imams and scholars have branded our country as evil, even calling her the ‘Great Satan’. I say that the Lord that we worship favors not the east or the west; He favors the righteous wherever they dwell. “Say: To Allah belong both East and West: He guideth whom He will to a Way that is straight.” Quran, 2:142. So to answer your question about our conscience as we peacefully coexist in The United States of America, my conscience, and the conscience of many Muslim Americans who live in this great land, is clear. As for those Muslims whose conscience and belief compels them to leave this country for another land, then the door is open for them to leave.

As for your call for American Muslims to wage jihad against our country and homeland; the land that you are urging us to wage war against, is the land of our homes that we are obligated to protect.

CAIR has released a statement condemning al-Awlaki’s most recent remarks, CAIR said: “There is no contradiction between being a Muslim and being an American. We repudiate Anwar al-Awlaki’s call for attacks on our nation and urge anyone who may be swayed by his extremist views to instead seek out scholars and community leaders who can offer a mainstream perspective on the positive role Muslims are obligated to play in every society. American Muslims seek to promote justice and the general welfare through civic engagement and community service.”

It has been reported that President Obama has put Al Awlaki on a “wanted dead or alive” list and authorized an extra-judicial assassination. It is to be hoped that we don’t sacrifice the ideals of America by murdering the man rather than bringing him to trial. He does have a right to due process under the law.

What Al Awlaki is advocating is criminal as it is against American law and against Sharia law. For that he deserves to be tried and if found guilty punished to the full extent of the law. However, assassinating an American citizen also seems to be outside of American law. Due process, like habeas corpus and many other Constitutional protections for all citizens are important rights worth defending. Putting an American citizen on an assassination list seems to raise many Constitutional, legal, and moral questions, especially as this might establish a legal precedent.

Anwar Al Awlaki’s Latest Message of Hate

by Sheila Musaji

It was reported this afternoon (3/17/10) that the infamous Anwar Al-Awlaki has issued another message focusing on the American Muslim community.

He is quoted as saying in part:

“To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful co-existence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brother and sisters? How can you have your loyalty to a government that is leading the war against Islam and Muslims?” As a Washington Post article stated, this is a call for a U.S. Muslim revolt.

MPAC has already issued a statement on this nauseating and traitorous statement from al Awlaki:

“We reject Al-Awlaki’s message as destructive, appalling, and a violation of core Islamic teachings. Muslim Americans are active citizens who believe in working for change through civic and political engagement with our elected leaders. Al-Awlaki represents no one but himself, and his wicked attempt to exploit political frustrations will not be tolerated by Muslim Americans.”

MPAC and other national Muslim and Arab organizations - ISNA, ADC, AMAF&VAC, UMAA, APAAM, MAS, AAI, Congress of Arab-American organizations, ASMA, etc. condemned the Fort Hood shooting, and every other act of terrorism and violence committed by individuals claiming to be Muslim. National and International Muslim organizations have condemned extremism and terrorism. Muslim scholars have condemned extremism and terrorism. Individual Muslim activists and leaders have condemned extremism and terrorism. (You can read a collection of key quotes from many of these individuals here.

The American Muslim community also forcefully repudiated al Awlaki’s praise for the Fort Hood shooter. Here are a few of the condemnations from that incident:

CAIR: “As American Muslims said with one voice when this cowardly attack first occurred, no ideology could ever justify or excuse such violence. To call the alleged killer a ‘hero’ makes a mockery of every Islamic principle of justice. The twisted and misguided views in Anwar al-Awlaki’s posting are not those of American Muslims and do not reflect mainstream Islamic beliefs or sentiments.”

MPAC: “Awlaki’s statement is deplorable and sickening, and has no place in our country or in Islam,” said MPAC Executive Director Salam Al-Marayati. “We extend our heartfelt condolences to the families of those killed as well as to those wounded and their loved ones. We stand in solidarity with law enforcement and the US military to maintain the safety and security of all Americans.”

Dar al Hijrah Mosque (where Al Awlaki once taught): “After the recent tragic events in Fort Hood, Texas a hate-filled statement was made by a former imam of Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center, Anwar Al-Awlaki. As we understand the teaching of the scriptures our mission and method as Americans of faith is to enrich our society with faith, service, wisdom and beautiful preaching of God’s love and mercy to all of mankind. We openly denounce the statement of Mr. Al-Awlaki as posted on his website and those who may follow him. During Mr. Al-Awlaki’s employment his public speech was consistent with the values of tolerance and cooperation. Mr. Awlaki now claims that the American Muslims who have condemned the violent act of Major Hassan “committed treason against the Muslim Umaah and have fallen into hypocrisy”. With this reversal Mr. Al-Awlaki has clearly set himself apart from this community. He served a brief term of employment at Dar Al-Hijrah from January 2001 until his departure in April 2002.”

All of these statements apply equally to Al Awlaki’s most recent tirade. “The twisted and misguided views in Anwar al-Awlaki’s posting are not those of American Muslims and do not reflect mainstream Islamic beliefs or sentiments.” ” Awlaki’s statement is deplorable and sickening, and has no place in our country or in Islam” “Mr. Al-Awlaki has clearly set himself apart from this community.”

11/9/09 According to the New York Times “Intelligence agencies intercepted communications last year and this year between Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who is accused of shooting to death 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., and a radical cleric in Yemen known for his incendiary anti-American teachings. But federal authorities dropped an inquiry into the matter after deciding that the messages warranted no further action, government officials said on Monday.” The cleric is Anwar al-Awlaki who is reported as posting on his personal site that Maj. Hasan was a “hero”. Note: The NYT gave the url for Awlaki’s site, but when I attempted to go to the site I got an “internal server error” message, so the site seems to be down. If is true that this individual has said the things he is reported to have said, then hopefully the site will remain down. Although I would have loved to have left a comment telling him just how little I think of his “scholarship”. Just received an article by Aziz Poonawalla that exactly describes my feelings: “What is there to say about al Awlaki? He’s a radical extremist islamist. On his website, he accuses those muslims (like myself) who have condemned Hasan’s attack at Fort Hood of “treason” to Islam and the Ummah - frankly I am proud to be labeled a traitor by the likes of scum such as he.” And, Omar Mozaffer has written a letter to Al-Awlaki to which I would love to see the answer. Inayat Bunglawala has also weighed in on Al-Awlaki’s incitement to violence.

Al Awlaki took Hamza Yusuf’s advice “If you hate the west, emigrate to a Muslim country”. He needs to stay wherever he is and the Muslim leadership needs to continue to do everything in their power to counteract his message of hate.

If Al Awlaki is the author of these statements, then he is a traitor to our country, and hopefully will be brought to justice before he can infect others with his hateful venom.

One question that remains unanswered is when and how Al Awlaki himself became radicalized. All reports are that no one in the Muslim community or in the government saw any signs of any radical beliefs prior to, and even after 9/11. He was even invited to lunch at the Pentagon after 9/11. He blogged on Ramadan on the Washington Post in November of 2011.

We have now added advertising to help cover TAM's expenses, however we strive to avoid all inappropriate content. By clicking "ads by google" you can report problematical ads and help improve the system. If you have further comments or concerns regarding the ads, contact us.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed on this webpage do not necessarily reflect
the editorial position of The American Muslim, nor can the American Muslim
be held accountable for these views.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice
issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed an interest in said material
for research and educational purposes.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.